Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
INTRODUCTION
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
committed leadership;
focus on the customer;
integrated processes and teams;
quality-driven agenda; and
commitment to people.
141
142
Kagioglou M. et al.
flow, process design and resources planning, is undertaken. Indeed, a number of very effective philosophies
and practices such as Just in Time (JIT), lean production and others have a legacy of optimized production in the manufacturing sector. JIT aims to
improve production by utilizing the internal and external supply chains in terms of people and material
flow. The similarities of JIT, for example, in the construction sector can be illustrated by listing a number
of the benefits, amongst many, that are offered by its
successful implementation:
The first two benefits can be realized in the construction industry (see, for example, Koskela 1992)
perhaps more readily than the third one, which requires a significant reorganization and mind-shift of
the litigation-driven industry.
This paper concentrates on the lessons that can be
learned from the NPD/project process of manufacturing, and reference to it is made throughout the description of the Generic Design and Construction
Process Protocol (GDCPP).
THE GENERIC DESIGN AND
CONSTRUCTION PROCESS (GDCPP)
PROTOCOL
This section presents a description of the research
methods and the main findings of an Engineering and
Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) funded
project under the Innovative Manufacturing Initiative
(IMI) Construction as a Manufacturing Process initiative. The project brought together a number of
companies, representing the construction supply
chain, and the University of Salfords research expertise to produce the Generic Design and Construction
Process Protocol.
The main aims of the project were to:
develop an improved design and construction Process Protocol by analysing the current practices in
the construction industry and drawing comparisons
with similar practices in the manufacturing industry; and
identify the Information Technology (IT) requirements needed to support the Process Protocol and
2000 Blackwell Science Ltd, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 7 2, 141 153
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The research team endeavoured to use a methodology
that was sympathetic to the issues being investigated:
in effect to suit the method to the problem, and not
the problem to the method (Linstone 1978). Furthermore, it was appreciated that different types of issues
would be encountered during the development of the
Process Protocol, and that these often disparate issues
would be best served by a variety of research methods.
To provide the necessary contingency-based, but integrated, research methodology to accommodate these
differing demands in a coherent and consistent way, an
overall research model was developed, as shown in Fig.
1.
The outer ring of Fig. 1 represents the unifying
research philosophy, which guides and energizes the
inner research approaches and research techniques.
Research approaches consist of the dominant theory
generation and testing methods. Research techniques
comprise data collection tools.
The nesting of the models elements generated a
framework, which provided the research team with an
interactive portfolio of approaches and techniques that
benefited from meta-level direction and cohesion.
Each of the models elements will be briefly discussed.
2000 Blackwell Science Ltd, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 7 2, 141 153
143
144
Kagioglou M. et al.
Action research
The methodology was infused with an action research/
learning dimension, in as much as the workshops not
only facilitated the generation of new knowledge or
understanding but also provided structured frameworks
for carrying out organizational change within the
boundaries of the industrial partner research team
members.
The action research strand was firmly anchored to
the following interactive assumptions:
research philosophy (see, for example, Berger & Luckmann 1966; Sandywell 1975). The spiral, shown in
Fig. 2, depicts research as an iterative process whereby
the industrial partners and the University of Salford
research teams a priori knowledge, insights and experience form the preunderstanding, or common language,
to inform the subsequent stage of understanding, which
furthers the development of the Process Protocol.
This understanding, in turn, is the basis for the
preunderstanding of the next stage of development,
and so on.
The main conduit for the translation and elevation
of preunderstanding into understanding were workshops, although crucial preunderstanding/understanding was transferred and developed through an ongoing
dialogue both prior to and between the workshops.
The workshops and intervening dialogue improved
both individual and collective learning throughout the
project team.
Research approaches
Case studies
A traditional case study approach was used, with University of Salford researchers entering industrial partners organizations openly in the role of investigators,
with the express purpose of learning more about their
activities with respect to the design and construction
processes being practised. Three case studies were
undertakenone in a manufacturing organization and
two projects undertaken by Alfred McAlpines Special
Projects Division.
2000 Blackwell Science Ltd, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 7 2, 141 153
Techniques of research
Questionnaire surveys
Use was made of self-completion questionnaires during the initial scoping and case study elements of the
project. The questionnaires collected predominantly
qualitative data from the partners in the project.
The questionnaire surveys aimed to generate factual
and attitudinal information and understanding (see, for
example, Ackroyd & Hughes 1983). The factual elements of the questionnaires sought to gain information
from individuals within the industrial partners firms
concerning the material aspects of design and construction processes: for example, project duration
time. The attitudinal aspects of the questionnaires
aimed to secure data on what individuals felt about a
given issue: in this case, for example, what they felt
about the effectiveness of the prevailing performance
review process.
Workshops
The workshops carried out during the project were
central to fruitful preunderstanding and understanding
progression. Each workshop had a specific task to
investigate, which was set out and managed by a
University of Salford co-ordinator. The workshop
configuration, in effect, created a boundary-spanning
team, which could tackle complex process issues by
bringing together and harnessing a diverse range of
expertise in a structured way.
The Workshops were designed and implemented to:
Interviews
Interviews were used throughout the research process.
In total, there were 30 interviews helping the development of the Process Protocol and 30 interviews during
the case study investigations. They were generally
semi-structured in nature to allow it to have an overall
purpose but be sufficiently flexible to explore issues as
they arose during the discussion. The contents of
interviews were validated by the sending of case study
reports for comment to the relevant industrial
partners.
2000 Blackwell Science Ltd, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 7 2, 141 153
145
146
Kagioglou M. et al.
Literature review
A wide literature review of primary, secondary and
tertiary sources was carried out.
The following literature reviews were undertaken.
2000 Blackwell Science Ltd, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 7 2, 141 153
The potential benefit of this approach is fundamentally the progressive fixing and/or approval of information throughout the process. As Cooper (1994) stated,
the discipline of the phase review activity improved the
conventional chaotic, ad hoc approach of manufacturing to which the construction industry of today could
be compared.
A consistent process
Co-ordination
2000 Blackwell Science Ltd, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 7 2, 141 153
147
148
Kagioglou M. et al.
Feedback
In addition to the direct teamwork problems associated with TMOs, the ability to learn from experience
is also hampered by the continual formation and
break-up of project teams. Both success and failure
can offer important lessons for the future; however, the
fragmented and competitive nature of the construction
industry prevents the benefits of shared best practice
being utilized. The phase review process facilitates a
means by which project experiences can be recorded
throughout the process, thereby informing later phases
and future projects. Competitive advantage will arise
from how such experiences are acted upon. Shared
knowledge may not automatically increase the competitiveness of companies working in construction. This
Process Protocol, therefore, proposes the creation,
maintenance and use of a legacy archive, which acts as
a central repository or information spine (Sheath et al.
1996), for the information generated through each of
the phases of the process. The subsequent increase in
awareness, project to project, has the potential for
reducing risk and improving performance, which, over
time, may ultimately meet Lathams expectations.
Preproject stage
The preproject phases relate to the strategic business
considerations of any potential project that aims to
address a clients need. Throughout these phases, the
clients need is progressively defined and assessed with
the aim of:
Preconstruction stage
With outline financial approval obtained, the process
progresses through to the preconstruction phases
where the defined clients need is developed into an
appropriate design solution. Like many conventional
models of the design process, these phases develop the
design through a logical sequence, with the aim of
delivering approved production information. The
phase review process, however, adds the potential for
the progressive fixing of the design, together with its
concurrent development, within a formal, co-ordinated
framework. Progressive fixity should not be confused
with design freeze although, to some, this may be a
desired aspect of the process. The major benefit of the
fixity of design is the potential for improved communi-
2000 Blackwell Science Ltd, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 7 2, 141 153
2000 Blackwell Science Ltd, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 7 2, 141 153
149
150
Kagioglou M. et al.
Upon completion of the construction phase, the Process Protocol continues into the postconstruction
phases, which aim to continually monitor and manage
the maintenance needs of the constructed facility.
Again, the full involvement of facilities management
specialists at the earlier stages of the process should
make the enactment of such activities less problematic.
The need for surveys of the completed property, for
example, should be avoided as all records of the development of the facility should have been recorded by
the projects legacy archive.
Process/change management
cation and co-ordination between the projects participants as they pass through each phase. Given the
dynamic market conditions that influence many construction clients decisions, the need for flexibility
must be addressed by the industry. At the end of these
phases, the aim is to secure full financial authority to
proceed. Only on such authority will the construction
phase commence; this decision will be easier to make
when the extent of the work and its associated risks
can be readily understood.
Construction stage
The construction phase is solely concerned with the
production of the project solution. It is here that the
full benefits of the co-ordination and communication
earlier in the process may be fully realized. Potentially,
any changes in the clients requirements will be minimal, as the increased cost of change as the design
progresses should be fully understood by the time
on-site construction work begins.
The hard gate that divides the preconstruction and
construction phases should not prevent a work package approach to construction and the associated delivery time benefits that this brings. As with all activities
in the process, where concurrency is possible it can be
accommodated. The hard and soft gates that signify
phase reviews merely require that approval is granted
prior to such an activity being carried out.
2000 Blackwell Science Ltd, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 7 2, 141 153
Deliverables
Each gate of the Process Protocol represents a decision-making point. The decisions are based primarily
on documented project and process information,
which are called deliverables. They are primarily compiled by project management to form the phase review
report. The report includes all the deliverables (see Fig.
6) specific to the phase and as they are defined by the
Process Protocol for the specific project. This phase
review report forms the basis for the client body (i.e.
development management) to make a decision concerning the future of the project.
2000 Blackwell Science Ltd, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 7 2, 141 153
151
152
Kagioglou M. et al.
Design and Construction Process Protocol. Journal of Construction Procurement, 4, 132 151.
BAA Plc. (1995) The Project Process. BAA Plc., UK.
Ball, M. (1996) Rebuilding Construction. Routledge, London.
Banwell, H. (1964) Report of the Committee on the Placing and
Management of Contracts for Building and Civil Engineering
Works. HMSO, London.
Berger, P.L. & Luckmann, T. (1966) The Social Construction
of Reality. Doubleday, Garden City, NY.
British Property Federation (1983) Manual of the BPF System
for Building Design and Construction. British Property Federation, London.
Construction Industry Research and Information Association
(1995) Planning to Build?. Special Publication 113.
Cooper, R., Kagioglou, M., Aouad, G., Hinks, J., Sexton, M.
& Sheath, D. (1998) Development of a generic design and
construction process, pp. 205 214. European Conference on
Product Data Technology, PDT Days 98, BRE.
Cooper, R.G. (1994) Third-generation new product processes. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 11, 3 14.
Egan, J. (1998) Rethinking Construction. Department of the
Environment, Transport and the Regions, London.
Hughes, W. (1991) Modelling the construction process using
plans of work. Construction project modelling and productivity.
Proceedings of an International Conference CIB W65, Dubrovnik.
Latham, M. (1994) Constructing the Team. HMSO, London.
Linstone, H.A. (1978) The Dephi technique. In: Handbook of
Futures Research (ed. J. Fowles), pp. 293 300. Greenwood
Press, London.
Luck, R. & Newcombe, R. (1996) The case for the integration of the project participants activities within a construction project environment. In: The Organization and
Management of Construction: Shaping Theory and Practice,
vol. 2 (eds D. A. Langford & A. Retik), pp. 458 470.
Spon, London.
Kagioglou, M., Cooper, R., Aouad, G., Hinks, J., Sexton, M.
& Sheath, D. (1998a) A Generic Guide to the Design and
Construction Process Protocol. University of Salford, UK.
Kagioglou, M., Cooper, R., Aouad, G., Sexton, M., Hinks, J.
& Sheath, D. (1998b) Cross-industry learning: the development of a generic design and construction process based
on stage/gate new product development processes found in
the manufacturing industry. In: Engineering Design Conference 98 (eds S. Sivaloganathan & T. M. M. Shahin), pp.
595 602. 23 25 June, Brunel University.
Koskela, L. (1992) Application of the new production philosophy
to construction. Technical Report c72, Center for Integrated Facility Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University, USA.
Odman, P. (1985) Hermeneutics. In: The International Encyclopaedia of Education (eds T. Husen & N. T. Postlethwaite), pp. 2162 2169. Pergamon, Oxford.
OReilly, J.J.N. (1987) Better briefing means better buildings.
Building Research Establishment Report BR 95, B.R.E.,
Garston, UK.
RIBA (1980) Handbook of Architectural Practice and Management. RIBA, London.
Rosenau, M. (1996) The PDMA Handbook of New Product
Development. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Sandywell, B. (1975) Problems of Reflexivity and Dialectics in
Sociological Inquiry. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.
2000 Blackwell Science Ltd, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 7 2, 141 153
2000 Blackwell Science Ltd, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 7 2, 141 153
153